Is there an after life.

If I were a Doubting Thomas, here are the questions I would have regarding that eight-foot high jump: 

• How come Sotomayor never replicated that world-record jump?
• How come nobody has replicated it in more than a quarter century?
• How do we know the officials weren’t bribed by the Castro regime of Cuba?
• Did each of the officials have proper training in measuring techniques?  Did at least one of them have a Ph.D. in mathematics?  
• How do we know that the officials weren’t drugged and weren’t hallucinating?
• Could the officials have been hypnotized to think they were seeing 96.5 inches on the measuring device?  
• How do we know that the measuring device wasn’t ‘doctored’ beforehand and off a few inches? 
• Is the measuring device still available for calibration?  If it is, how can we be sure it is the same one used 26 years ago?
• Was Sotomayor tested for performance-enhancing drugs?  If so, could he have used one of those drugs that defies testing? 
• Did anyone check Sotomayor’s shoes for hidden springs? 
• Could an illusionist have been employed to make it appear that he cleared the bar when he actually went under it?

Looking on the Wikipedia page:

-Sotomayor exceeded the 8 foot mark twice.
-While nobody has replicated it, there continue to be stars with jumps nearly as high, each of which would serve as a fantastical achievement on its own.
-We don't know the officials weren't bribed, but that would be a helluva lot of bribery.
-Officials at these events are chosen because they have the proper training. A PhD in Mathematics would be poor training for measuring high jumps. To suggest otherwise demonstrates an ignorance of the skillsets involved.
-Drugged and hallucinating judges behave in a way which would have been obvious to observers.
-I don't know about hypnotizing, but that's also a helluva lot of hypnotizing.
-A doctored device would not have preferentially favored Sotomayor.
-A miscalibrated device would not have preferentially favored Sotomayor.
-This concern is reasonable, since Sotomayor did have an offense for the use of a performance-enchanting drug, and had been suspended for it.
-I don't know, but an ability to use performance enhancing devices would not preferentially favor Sotomayor.
-An illusionist would have needed to have control over the set-up on multiple occasions.

Are these questions/answers relevant to the concerns which are raised by skeptics?

Sotomayors accomplishments were all documented. Almost all fantastical psi claims are undocumented. Sotomayor was able to demonstrate unusual abilities on repeated, controlled occasions. Fantastical psi claims mostly fail when repeated under controlled occasions. Many fantastical psi claims are made under conditions where hallucinations or illusions are commonly present or employed. Many times testing has been performed by those who lack the relevant skillset, rather than by those who have been specifically trained for the relevant skillset. Legitimate concerns are still legitimate concerns, even if stated with a sarcastic tone. And while his specific achievements are unique, so far, there are many additional performers whose abilities would still pass the threshold of "fantastical".

Linda 

 Ok so before that we can not say anything, do that mean it the same as god thing both habe logic problem.

Anytime you make something up (e.g. "God"), when you should say, "I don't know", it can be seen as a logic problem.

What do you think scientists made up? The "Big Bang" refers to specific events for which there is plenty of empirical information. Scientists may speculate on what it looked like past those events, but that doesn't change the existence of the Big Bang event.

Linda

Anytime you make something up (e.g. "God"), when you should say, "I don't know", it can be seen as a logic problem.

What do you think scientists made up? The "Big Bang" refers to specific events for which there is plenty of empirical information. Scientists may speculate on what it looked like past those events, but that doesn't change the existence of the Big Bang event.

Linda

 :l I dont say that big bang not exist either god, i say the two question my question and the god question have logic problem.
 Even with that we cant say anything, my question have a logic problem and god question have a logic problem that all we can say now.
Btw i have problem with reding english so maybe im understand wrong what you say

Problems with the Big Bang Theory is that there's no actual solid evidence showing that it ever even happened.

No-one was around billions of years ago to observe it, so the empirical data is kind of lacking.

Rather, all that we have are vague assertions that this or that is evidence for the Big Bang, and no actual, meaningful evidence.

Cosmic Background Radiation? It seems illogical that it can say anything at all about the universe 13 billion years ago.

(Mods might want to split these BBT posts off. )

 :l I dont say that big bang not exist either god, i say the two question my question and the god question have logic problem.
Btw i have problem with reding english so maybe im understand wrong what you say

God question has no logic problem whatsoever: the people who ask "who created God"? only think in terms of asymmetrical forward moving time, cause/effect and so forth. As quantum mechanics suggest, time is not at all what we think it is. Besides, people who experienced NDE's describe how time on the other side is not at all what it is in space/time continuum we live in. They describe it as a constant "now", for the lack of better description, and say that it's extremely relative, to say the least. So, to sum it up, the question "who created God" is anthropocentric nonsense.

God question has no logic problem whatsoever: the people who ask "who created God"? only think in terms of asymmetrical forward moving time, cause/effect and so forth. As quantum mechanics suggest, time is not at all what we think it is. Besides, people who experienced NDE's describe how time on the other side is not at all what it is in space/time continuum we live in. They describe it as a constant "now", for the lack of better description, and say that it's extremely relative, to say the least. So, to sum it up, the question "who created God" is anthropocentric nonsense.

 I know nothing about science and and stuff, im as dumb as a penut.

God question has no logic problem whatsoever: the people who ask "who created God"? only think in terms of asymmetrical forward moving time, cause/effect and so forth. As quantum mechanics suggest, time is not at all what we think it is. Besides, people who experienced NDE's describe how time on the other side is not at all what it is in space/time continuum we live in. They describe it as a constant "now", for the lack of better description, and say that it's extremely relative, to say the least. So, to sum it up, the question "who created God" is anthropocentric nonsense.

 I still think it have logic bcs like what i answer karma before, it far beyond the universe and human logic, so that illogic.

 I still think it have logic bcs like what i answer karma before, it far beyond the universe and human logic, so that illogic.

Everything has logic, however, the question "who created God?" is anthropocentric, and it implies the linear asymmetrical time flow, so, it make no sense, there is no way around it.